Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole  (Read 44329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ecolitan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #60 on: July 14, 2010, 02:11:33 PM »

Any blog about this should have lots of quotes and comparisons of the language.  I don't care what light it's cast in so long as people read the words.

Here you are.

http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?board=30.0

Specifically,

http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=1997.0

Those are not blogs, no one reads those but insiders.  Not that Denis has a huge following of outsiders but he's likely read by a broader spectrum than freekeene.
Logged

Ecolitan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #61 on: July 14, 2010, 02:18:04 PM »

fruits of his labor, so how should one proceed in a case where L. Neil put this document out for the world to see

No man born in the 20th century would have coined the phrase "fruits of his labor".  Clearly L. Neil Smith is a thief.  I guess one should proceed by demanding restitution and apology.  Is anyone here related to John Locke?  No, not the smoke monster, the other one.  I bet John Locke stole that shit too, from a grad student or something.  How long has that phrase been around?  Think the original author is pissed?
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #62 on: July 14, 2010, 02:24:00 PM »

I'm not siding with Ian here, but he did say numerous times that it was based on L. Neil's covenant. It has only been minutely altered, point one of the thing says that every man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, so how should one proceed in a case where L. Neil put this document out for the world to see (and incidentally copy. Read the Galatin Divergence, or any of the books in his North American Confederacy series and you'd get the idea that Freedom is more important an ideal than IP)

I guess the real issue here is tangibility. He has every right to those documents that he wrote by hand, or printed, or stored on his hard driver or servers. But if the idea itself gets out of the bottle, what rights can be naturally derived from its existence?

Ooh, how about this as an idea? He tacitly approves of the use of his document by posting it on the web? I mean, I have to send the packets and IP data to request a file from him and his servers then authorize the motherboard to send return packets and the file to my computer.
So, he's authorized the machine to disseminate the file, giving it logic and instructions on what cases may be given the file.

I'm afraid it's more serious than that.  Neil flat-out published the ideas.  I'm mystified that any anarchist would be surprised that someone used them--even nearly verbatim.  Still, it would have been gentlemanly to include attribution to Neil in the document.  

I fault them both for being assholes, and hope they stop doing so.  I salute Ian for considering the advice of people last night, and do hope he comes back with something like the following.

"I really hadn't taken enough time and effort to consider your concern, and I'm sorry I got testy instead of expressing this sentiment.  I must say, however, that your response was also less than ideal.  Can we turn this into a positive learning experience for liberty?

"I'd like to suggest that Davi add attribution to you, to the original document, and to every reproduction of the document.  I'd also like to consider any other compensation that would make you whole.  Coming to a gentlemanly understanding over this is the right thing to do, for each other, and for the progress of liberty.

"How can we make you whole?"
Logged

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #63 on: July 14, 2010, 02:36:39 PM »

Those are not blogs, no one reads those but insiders.  Not that Denis has a huge following of outsiders but he's likely read by a broader spectrum than freekeene.

I meant to provide the quotes, texts and reasonings for citation elsewhere.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #64 on: July 14, 2010, 02:50:19 PM »

I'd also like to add that the suggestion of arbitration by a common trusted party (or by someone else, agreed to by trusted parties--either of which was Davi's idea, last night, IIRC) is a great idea.  It's certainly possible that Ian and Neil won't manage to agree with each other, but perhaps someone they both respect, or someone those parties respect.

That's not just for remedying the conflict, but also for improving both of their reputations, which I'm going to suggest have both taken a significant hit in the last few days.
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #65 on: July 14, 2010, 03:09:08 PM »

He replied to my above e-mail last night with:

Code: [Select]
    You are apparently an illiterate. Show me where I threatened anybody
with government force. I did not. Now I will accept your abject apology.

N.

--
=====================================================================
FIND MY BOOKS AT:

Arc Manor/Phoenix Pick: http://www.phoenixpick.com/

Big Head Press: http://www.bigheadpress.com

_Ceres_ Online:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?page_id=53

READ MY OPINIONS AT:

The Libertarian Enterprise: http://www.ncc-1776.org

L. Neil Smith At Random:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/

The Moratorium:
http://elneil.rationalreview.com/

The Webley Page: http://www.lneilsmith.org

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/lneilsmith.htm


I replied with:

Code: [Select]
L. Neil Smith,

Clearly I'm not "illiterate" (misliterate or underliterate - maybe). It
is also obvious that I can't stand up to you on the basis of literary
skill and accomplishment, but I can nonetheless point out the
irrationality of your recent actions to the best of my ability.

In quotations of your e-mails, which I've accepted as genuine on the
basis of the reputation of the people involved, you've threatened to
involve your "attorney" - in mainstream context this can only refer to
an individual licensed by the government's legal monopoly, and thus
owing his primary allegiance to the state.  It is conceivable that you
intended to seek informal legal advice for a non-governmental resolution
of this matter, but your e-mails don't mention any form of reputation-
leveraged arbitration, nor hint at any other possible remedy.  Do you
really need to check with a lawyer before encouraging your fans to
boycott / ostracize the individuals you believe acted unethically in
quoting you? That is your Right, obviously, but it might be wiser to
check with a marketing analyst instead, who would probably tell you that
you're only shooting yourself in the foot by doing this.  (I can provide
some detailed online popularity benchmarks for free if you like.)

Furthermore, your e-mails accuse the people reflecting off your ideas of
"theft and vandalism", completely failing to distinguish between your
negative Property Rights as they would exist in a free society from any
alleged positive right to an artificial scarcity created for your
benefit - the latter can only be accomplished through a legal monopoly
that holds the supposed divine right to violate the negative Rights of
others.  I own my face, for example, but if I choose to go out in public
with my face uncovered then people who own devices that can capture the
light reflecting off my face (ex. their eyes, video cameras, etc) now
own the impressions / copies of those reflections.  I can't stick a note
on my forehead that says "implicit contract - by seeing this face you
agree to only see and remember it on my own terms" and expect that to be
as enforceable as an explicit contract (ex. the agreement between Roark
and Keating in The Fountainhead).  It's an inescapable fact of reality
that advancing technology reduces scarcity - people no longer need to
have me standing next to them in order to see my face, just as they can
download PDF images of your books over the Internet. This technological
advancement offers both benefits and drawbacks for your ability to
profit from your ideas, but the drawbacks do not constitute "theft" any
more than the invention and use of the internal-combustion engine
constituted horse-theft.

No one I know is disputing L. Neil Smith's negative Rights over his
literary accomplishments - if a mob of vandals really were trying to
hack your writings down the memory hole then I would be among the first
in line to defend you.

Best regards,
Alex Libman
Logged

The Muslim Agorist

  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1270
  • Join the Counter Economy
    • View Profile
    • The San Francisco Muslim Examiner
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #66 on: July 14, 2010, 03:18:27 PM »

I'd also like to add that the suggestion of arbitration by a common trusted party (or by someone else, agreed to by trusted parties--either of which was Davi's idea, last night, IIRC) is a great idea.  It's certainly possible that Ian and Neil won't manage to agree with each other, but perhaps someone they both respect, or someone those parties respect.

That's not just for remedying the conflict, but also for improving both of their reputations, which I'm going to suggest have both taken a significant hit in the last few days.

Not to mention actually having someone with reputation as an arbiter in the movement. We talk about this all the time, but never implement it. If you want something truly awesome to come from this conflict, something that could actually push the movement forward, we need to be looking for opportunities like this to show that the concept actually works.
Logged
"The Greatest Jihad is to speak a word of truth in the face of a tyrant."
~Prophet Muhammad

I'm tired of Repeating Myself

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #67 on: July 14, 2010, 03:34:05 PM »

Had a really good convo with Gard last night about IP, as well as the movie. It's on today's Liberty Conspiracy. (7-14-2010)
Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #68 on: July 14, 2010, 03:59:05 PM »

Had a really good convo with Gard last night about IP, as well as the movie.
It's on today's Liberty Conspiracy. (7-14-2010)

I'm going to try to listen to that, but the devil music he usually plays on his podcasts makes my ears bleed.  :lol:
Logged

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #69 on: July 14, 2010, 04:18:38 PM »

Had a really good convo with Gard last night about IP, as well as the movie. It's on today's Liberty Conspiracy. (7-14-2010)

The MP3 is not easy to find on his site. The only reference to audio files was after I selected the RSS feed icon.

Just a thought.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #70 on: July 14, 2010, 04:54:36 PM »

(MP3 link)

Also, L. Neil Smith replied to my last e-mail rant with:

Code: [Select]
    Well, this will all come out in the wash this weekend -- although
right now it's too amned hot to write and I'll have to do it at night.

Be well,

N.

Hopefully things will now be cooling down...
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #71 on: July 14, 2010, 05:55:39 PM »

Had a really good convo with Gard last night about IP, as well as the movie. It's on today's Liberty Conspiracy. (7-14-2010)

The MP3 is not easy to find on his site. The only reference to audio files was after I selected the RSS feed icon.

Just a thought.

Agreed.  I didn't see the link on his site, and downloaded it from iTunes.

(MP3 link)

Also, L. Neil Smith replied to my last e-mail rant with:

Code: [Select]
   Well, this will all come out in the wash this weekend -- although
right now it's too amned hot to write and I'll have to do it at night.

Be well,

N.

Hopefully things will now be cooling down...


I wonder if he's talking about him, or the weather being too hot.  It's well over 90 right now (maybe 75 miles away from him), and it was something like 98 yesterday.  Last could nights I could just manage to get some sleep (but it's not just the weather--my life is shit.)
Logged

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #72 on: July 19, 2010, 08:19:12 AM »

In case anyone is interested, L. Neil has posted his defense of I.P.:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle579-20100718-02.html
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #73 on: July 19, 2010, 08:21:17 AM »

Quote
I fault them both as being assholes.

Couldn't agree with you more.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole
« Reply #74 on: July 19, 2010, 11:09:42 AM »

 :shock:

I think Neil claimed that his "solution" would "make everyone happy."  Then this?  Why did he pretend he was going to be amiable when Ian changed his tone?  Ian should feel pretty good about improving his attitude, because he clearly comes out as the gentleman in this.

Quote
I was probably only eight years old when I realized that socialism is nothing more than a fancied-up excuse for stealing other people's property and killing them if they resist, that collectivism is just a shabby attempt to make theft and murder appear respectable. Later on, I came to understand that this is true of all "philosophies" of government.

...including "intellectual property" and the ability to own the thought processes of others and their applications...next....

I had to write Neil, after that.  Following is the text of my email:

We met at FreedomFest '09 and discussed writing and firearms, and you were quite friendly and loquacious.  I came away with that experience with an even greater appreciation of you than I had already absorbed through others.  Yet, your behavior over this latest dust-up spoils it all.

Before I begin, I want you to know that I am not a signatory to either document.  If I had gotten around to digesting either (and I had planned to), I would not have approved of either article one, which seem to imply an objectivist (rather than principled libertarian) view of so-called "intellectual property," at least without clarification.  I do not wish to get into the specifics of the IP issue here, but suggest you consult your friend Stephen Kinsella and his tomes of elaboration on the issue.  I believe he has addressed each and every bogus claim you expressed in regard to IP.

The Shire folks could have been more thoughtful in their initial actions, and certainly could have been more conciliatory in response to your tirade, but they were essentially in the right (though it would have been gentlemanly for them to give you literary credit in their document.) When Ian Freeman came back to you with apologies and a wish to make amends, that was your cue to find a respectful tone.  Yet, even after he tried to work with you, you appear to have spit in his face, and into the face of everyone who disagrees with your position.  I cannot even imagine what possessed you to write such a hateful pack of lies and publish it in response to that effort.  I think anyone would understand your initial dismay from seeing a strikingly similar document to the one you wrote, posted online, without direct attribution, but your continued unwillingness to handle the misunderstanding as a gentlemen is astoundingly disappointing.

Though the monopoly force view of IP is commonly held by principled libertarians as outdated, at best, amongst libertarians, and Ayn Rand's clinging to it as pathetic and uncharacteristically unprincipled, I would still have hoped that you would be capable of discussing the issue with a peace-loving arbitrator both parties could accept.  Yet, the attitude of "liberty minus my pet state-sanctioned issue" showed its ugly head.  I'd bet the "thieves" would have been willing to compensate you for reasonable "losses" and give you more direct attribution, if only you had decided to behave maturely, after the initial rage and name-calling subsided.  Instead, it appears you wish to drag your reputation through the mud, along with collectivists' view of libertarians.  I give you a hearty thanks for that!

Good luck with your odd interpretation of liberty, peaceful human cooperation, and the advancement of human dignity.

<signature>

PS: You forgot to give attribution for the phrase "Hole-In-The-Head Gang."


Added clarification pointing to the start of the email.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 01:19:17 PM by What's the frequency, Kenneth? »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole

// ]]>

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 32 queries.